Headlines

Nelson Lund

Gay marriage: A social experiment without science behind it

A significant number of organizations representing social and behavioral scientists have filed briefs promising the court that there is nothing to worry about. These assurances have no scientific foundation. Same-sex marriage is brand new, and child rearing by same-sex couples remains rare. Even if both phenomena were far more common, large amounts of data collected over decades would be required before any responsible researcher could make meaningful scientific estimates of the long-term effects of redefining marriage. …

Social-science advocacy organizations, however, have promoted the myth that a lack of evidence, so far, of bad effects implies the nonexistence of such effects. This myth is based on conjecture or faith, not science. …

This orientation has been on rich display in the research on same-sex parenting, which is scientific primarily in the sense that it is typically conducted by people with postgraduate degrees. There are no scientifically reliable studies at all, nor could there be, given the available data. Yet the Supreme Court has been solemnly assured by many scientific organizations, such as the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, that the overwhelming weight of evidence indicates that same-sex couples are every bit the equal of opposite-sex parents in every relevant respect. The number of studies may be overwhelming but the evidence assuredly is not.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

It’s entirely relevant. The people here demanding SCIENCE! on this issue are the same ones who eschew it in nearly all other circumstances. I’m just wondering why you think science is an argument for your case, since you don’t care what science has to say on other questions.

If you eschew science in other areas, but accept it here because you think it’s convenient for your argument, then your calls for ‘scientific evidence’ ring hollow.

Good Lt on March 27, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Actually this started because I said it wasn’t inherent and you told me I was wrong basically what amounted to “because I said so, and I know some gay people and you don’t.”

Pyschology is not a science but a democracy of professors.
1st example. Homosexuality was a mental illness, now its a normal lifestyle choice.
2cd example. Schizophrenia was cause by the mothers behavior. Now its inherent in the child.
“social scientist” follows what is considered accepted at the time of their work by the public, thus no science.

Macroevolution is simply lots of microevolution over long time periods. The mechanism is exactly the same.

That is one theory. Isn’t it. But there are, and have been, others. But, it still has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

And, despite your implications to the contrary, “eschewing” scientific consensus does not prove the absence of scientific inquiry. Science is about questioning. If you blindly follow a “consensus,” that is called faith or religion.

I was thinking of this issue today from a purely scientific view based upon my observations in life of the behavioral interactions of:
Humans
Dogs
Cats
Horses
Cows

First of all, all of these creatures practice sexual reproduction.
These creatures also share not only some basic anatomy, but their brains are also similar is many ways as well.

Now I have seen a bovine bull f@ck another bull when they are yearlings. You go buy bulls & you sometimes see this in the pen out back. It happens bcs they are experincing uncontrollable physiological urges.They have no free will like a human.
But they are not doing it bcs they like it up the a$$ or prefer to mate with a male bovine bcs its love at 1st sight.
The females produce pheremones that the bull is attracted to. IT’s why they curl their lips & noses up & sniff in the air.
I see all the above animals do this.
Even to an extent, humans.
Now, from what I have read over the years it seems there is a somewhat steady low number of homosexual males in all cultures & that I have heard hovers aroung maybe 5% of a total population.
Is there a ‘gay’ gene? Is there a genetic predisposition to be a homosexual?
Homosexuality is an aberration in nature amongst our species.
I don’t give a $hit how you cut that argument it is true.
note the definition of that word:A departure from what is normal, usual, or expected, typically one that is unwelcome
Sexual normalcy in humans is man+woman=reproduction.
So why is homosexuality more prevalent among men & why does it happen in general?
Could it be related to hormonal abnormalities in developing humans at different stages of development?
Could it be related to physological upbringing in regards to role models for behavior?
I believe yes to both.
Does this mean it is acceptable to be gay?
In regards to nature, I do not believe it is a good thing.
The diseases transmitted through male homosexual sex where a man stuffs his pen!s inside another man’s rectum (or even when heterosexuals do this) is unnatural & does not serve the purpose nature has intended for us regarding the sex act.
The perineum is very delicate tissue & things were not mean to be stuff inside it. It’s an out hole.
In nature, ALL species of living creatures have one basic drive that is the sole purpose of their existence at the very base level: passing on their genetic information, which ensures survival of the species.
Now psychological interactions, like having a society, in different ways help ensure, or do not ensure, the survival of genetic groups.
So the question is what are the pros to homosexual behaviors in human society & more importantly, what are the cons?
A developing male of our species needs male role models that exhibit male behavior in order to develop into adult males that will continue to positively add to the species’ benefit to pass on genetics.
Indirectly, they also must have positive male role models when contributing to society which contributes to survival, indirectly, of the gene pool of any group of humans.
Males also need female influence.
To me, from this sterile scientific analysis, homosexuality is not healthy for any particular gene pool at several times the normal aberration rate for all human populations.
Since humans can actually choose to limit their instinctual behaviors, we can choose to become destructive to the propagation of our own species.
I have left religion out of this.
I find this a fascinating idea that I have proposed here in duscussion.
Should we therefore make it easier & even reward behavior that is ultimately detrimental to passing on our genes for survival, & indirectly harming our society in general, which also leads to survival of our particular gene pools?

That seems to be the prevailing wisdom that if you question anything- you are anti.. I seem to remember a time when the whole point of science was to question itself, and the idea of “settled science” was ludicrous..

Just point me towards one person who says they have choice over what gets them sexually excited.

libfreeordie on March 27, 2013 at 2:38 PM

I absolutely have a choice over my libido. Just ask any sub perfect male who ends up marrying someone that is not an 8 or above on their appearance. I chose to take several decades out of my life so I did not have to settle, many do not do this and marry someone they originally were not attracted to.

And I will argue that even if a genetic component IS found that actually CAUSES a person to be gay is ever found, it will be no more than a small % of the population affected by it.
Instituting homosexuality as an alternate choice & lifestyle is ignoring the basic facts of nature that such behavior is an aberration in nature.
Aberrations in nature like this should not be encourage to attract a larger % than is naturally available of said aberration.
Now if the gay gene imparts all kinds of great genetic powers & advantages regarding natural selection, then we can talk about trying to propagate its % to a higher value based on such an environment.

I absolutely have a choice over my libido. Just ask any sub perfect male who ends up marrying someone that is not an 8 or above on their appearance. I chose to take several decades out of my life so I did not have to settle, many do not do this and marry someone they originally were not attracted to.

astonerii on March 27, 2013 at 2:52 PM

I agree with this to a point.
But in reality, just bcs one is stimulated sexually does not mean it is appropriate to act upon it.
According to livelikeaslaveanddie’s logic, people who are sexually excited when they torture & kill people ought to be able to act upon those urges.

Have you never used a condom? Are you unaware of how STDs spread and how that’s prevented when you use a condom?

ZachV on March 27, 2013 at 2:35 PM

If you are betting on condoms to stop the spread of STD’s, you are sadly uninformed.
Condoms are not going to stop them all. Condom’s have a what, 60+% something success rate?
That is not acceptable when it come to stopping the spread of deadly diseases.
The only way to really stop these things is to stop doing the deed that causes it.
So HIV that would be:
Don’t share blood products meaning:
Don’t use needles somebody else did
Don’t put your pen!s in another man’s a$$.
Don’t have anal sex.
Don’t swap blood products in any other way.
Very simple.

The party who believe humans walked alongside dinosaurs, don’t believe in global warming, still champion failed abstinence campaigns, don’t believe in birth control, and think being gay is a choice…all of a sudden want people to pay attention to SCIENCE in the gay marriage debate.

Nothing more than a desperation delay tactic.

cornfedbubba on March 27, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Did you read what I wrote?
And I do not believe the 1st part of your statement bcs that is ridiculous. There is no evidence that is true.
Abstinence works in many situations.
Being gay is actually a choice just like it is a choice a person makes not to f#ck little kids, eat dead bodies, kill people, etc.
And birth control?
A lot of conservatives believe in it & use it.